Rebooting a campaign with 2d20 Conan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xaosseed
  • Start date Start date
X

Xaosseed

Guest
Previous campaign was a decent knock-around game - run with Brancalonia so drawn steel led to 5e combat with all its flaws and extravagant abilities and less than that was Brancalonia Brawl rules fisticuffs which could be very entertaining, could be a bit of a drag depending on how the players leaned into it and how interesting the surroundings were.

The factor that ended that campaign originally was the destabilisation of the smallest householders sleeping schedule which wiped out the predictable late evening slot this campaign lived in. Recently that sleep schedule has restabilised and the time slot has opened up again - I would like to get some more gaming in, all the old players I spoke with remain keen but ... I felt not fully enthused to just fire it back up as was.

Kicking it around a bit, I think my issue is that I do not want to run 5e yet again; the fantasy super-heroes vibe of 5e (let alone 5.5e) is not what I want - too much magic-driven problem-crushing, not enough cunning use of terrain and trickery or desperate schemes and risks.

To test this, I am going to try re-booting the campaign with 2d20 Conan - I liked what I got from the 2d20 Klingon session I ran and I think there is potential here for the 'momentum/doom' collective pool to capture the right sort of 'all in this together' vibes that the campaign already leaned towards.

On 2d20 and doom pools

I got most of the Conan 2d20 back catalogue from a bundle but I think the quickstart guide should be enough to get going.

I think the attributes and skills side of things for character building should be manageable for the players, the 2d20 system I think I can walk them through and the key thing that is giving me the pep to actually run this is the whole 'doom pool' use to run adventures as a DM.

I have player experience with Spire which has those narrative gaming tools - various classes flex their abilities and suddenly there is (always was) a party, a corpse, a weapon, a clue. I am a pretty well practiced D&D GM where, to my perception, the situation is set and then revealed as the players encounter it. The narrative-gaming approach of players shoe-horning true facts in always rubbed me the wrong way, remembering arguments about tangents and derailing around game tables back in the day. I should get over this - if I am fine with anti-blorbo style player generated facts, then why not have those be active abilities?

My twitch about the doom pool is that I am hesitant to randomly crank up the difficulty of an encounter as the encounter progresses - pre-set triggers, sure, things that were already there, sure - but I have the 'oh, you are having a hard time, I halve the hit points' or 'oh, I have not gotten to use the big bosses fancy move, that attack does not kill him' - if feels like the worst type of squidgy, vibe-driven gaming that makes a mockery of players agency and effort.

The doom pool is a clearly visible to players warning that things could be about to get tough so they can gird themselves appropriately. It is permission to me as the DM to turn the screws without people getting sore that I am just ignoring the efforts they have put in to take down a foe.

Fit for purpose

The original Southern Reaches campaign was a goofball campaign with some of the most adorably raggedy characters I ever had turn up to my tables. The premise for it all was the staff of a great noble house stole the silver and ran off together and all washed up together at a tavern in the aforementioned Southern Reaches. A rolling open-table cast got up to dungeon delving, hex-crawling and political finagling with very few fatalities though a lot of fisticuffs were thrown and wild flights made.

I think the collective meta-currency of momentum, though designed for the desperate deeds of sword-and-sorcery games, could fit well to this campaign, encouraging the 'hang together' desperate band of desperadoes vibe - they might get things done if they all play their part - more than the approach I had previously of using gritty realism. Gritty realism worked to a point, people used their significant arsenal of magical powers sparingly, but it still meant that when they got to a serious fight they had that 'go nova' capability in their back pocket - they could always just bludgeon their way out.

I am having trouble fully articulating what aspect of the playstyle of that campaign seems such a good fit with the 2d20 system but my instincts are telling me it ought to be, so I think that is worth testing. Perhaps a few games in I will be better able to describe exactly why it works.

Continue reading...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dom
Interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dom
@First Age ran a Conan 2d20 campaign. It’s worth seeing if he can share.
 
When I ran the Shadow of the Sorcerer I found the game very unbalanced in favour of the PCs. So run it RAW, get the measure of it, then tweak the opposition.
 
I am finding quite a lot of references to the 2d20 campaign @First Age ran but I am having trouble spotting which is the definitive wrap-up or "2d20 lessons learned" - any pointers on that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My original response needs a little more: when I say "tweak" the opposition, I mean "turn to 11", give them doom pools, ensure that they have swarms of minions, give them the equivalent of 5e D&D lair actions powered by those doom pools. The tweaking is just how slowly you turn the dial from the original 1 to that 11. My players are very competent at squeezing every advantage from every nuance of any game system, yours may not, so don't go to 11 first.
However.. don't be surprised if you get there. There's a reason that later 2d20 iterations are less tilted in the PC's favour.
 
xaosseed said:
I am finding quite a lot of references to the 2d20 campaign @First Age ran but I am having trouble spotting which is the definitive wrap-up or "2d20 lessons learned" - any pointers on that?
Click to expand...

I don't seem to have a summary of my thoughts on Conan 2D20, and any reflections now will be clouded by time and the glut of more recent games using the 2D20 engine. With that in mind, here are a few things for you:

  • The game is very good indeed, and we had a lot of fun with it.
  • Yes, the game is tipped in the PC's favour and that is to its credit, so you will need to thoughtfully counter with Traits, opponent numbers, and other factors. Judicious use of some of those, changes the dynamic quite quickly. I think if I were to return to the game now I'd probably run it better, at least mechanically.
  • Make a point of calling out what the meta-currencies are for right up front, and be clear as to how they drive the action. The game only really works if your players embrace their intent and revel in the trouble they bring.
  • Your PCs need to speculate to accumulate for Momentum.
  • The main campaign books are titanic railroads, pulling players from one set-piece to the next. There's a lot of good material in there, but it's hard work to soften the plot strands sufficiently to make them maliable for more enjoyable play.
  • I'm not sure if you are using the game as an engine for more generic fantasy play, or diving straight into Hyborea? I assume the latter. I found the sorcery sections unweildy, though they work well enough for scene flavouring. Adapting spellcraft to the game for other settings would be fairly straightforward.

Were I to return to sword and sorcery in Hyborea, would I use Conan 2D20? Maybe. The game is good fun and quickly learned, I'm just 'over 2D20ed' at the moment. I might be tempted to use the great material in the book line but roll with a different engine such as Clash of Steel from Zozer Games, or Barbarians of Lemuria. Of course, I'd want to emulate the mighty thewed heroics that the Conan 2D20 game does well.

Hope this helps, and also hope your game goes well. Keep us posted!
 
I really should say.. I loved how players can drive story and achieve greatness in the Conan 2d20, and yes, it's one I shall be returning to, in a more sandbox way, and much more confidence as GM on how to balance it.
Note, there is a gritty less powered PC option in character generation that might be worth it.
 
My only issue with the engine was that if you focused down something like a thief path (like the Grey Mouser) then you were very limited in combat.
 
Dom said:
My only issue with the engine was that if you focused down something like a thief path (like the Grey Mouser) then you were very limited in combat.
Click to expand...
I think that the campaigns were so railroaded that effectively the was little to initiate non combat wise. It was much better when your character was off doing parkour at the very beginning and we all felt free. I think a free roaming sandbox game would allow a lot more scope for non combat skills and talents.
 
I worked around it in the end, but it took a lot of XP invested in the same kind of stunt talents to get to a point where I felt useful again. I just leaned into supporting you rather than fighting.
 
Dom said:
I worked around it in the end, but it took a lot of XP invested in the same kind of stunt talents to get to a point where I felt useful again. I just leaned into supporting you rather than fighting.
Click to expand...
Which I think was a problem with the published campaigns.
Hence my willingness to go back one day but right now I am reet sick of 2d20 .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dom
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top